Larry A. Law
Medical Malpractice Trial
Even though the jury decided to exonerate the physician who administered the vaccine while Yates was sick with an ear infection, the case exposed huge flaws--a system that was supposed to protect children from harm. You can read the details of the legal case and see pictures of Yates and his family and hear how they endured this 20-year battle on behalf of their vaccine injured son. The article will also remind you of the Health and Human Services' (HHS') corrupt cover-up of Hannah Poling's case which I also addressed in a blog post on August 25, 2020.
Yates is now 22 years old and a non-verbal, autistic son of Rolf and Aud Hazlehurst. No parent or child is permitted to sue vaccine manufacturers. But Yates was the only viable vaccine-injured child left out of thousands of injured children originally denied claims under the government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). After nearly 25 years of government shenanigans, Rolf was finally free to legally file a lawsuit against the physician who gave his son the shots. He stated, "If I did to a criminal, in a court of law, what the United States Department of Justice did to vaccine-injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be facing criminal charges." During this public trial by jury, the top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder were able to explain to the world how administering routine childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and other neurological disorders. Unfortunately, mainstream media weren't paying attention as they were influenced by Big Pharma advertising dollars and chose to ignore any negative news about vaccines.
Expert Witness Silenced
Dr. Richard Kelley, former director of the Genetics Department at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, who was an expert witness used by HHS in the Hannah Poling concession, stated that what happened to Hannah was also what happened to Yates. "I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body." Unfortunately, the judge ruled that his affidavit was not admissible in the 2022 malpractice trial and the jury never heard the statement.
Rolf Hazlehurst stated, "In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof that the defendant (doctor) deviated from the local 'standard of care' or the defendant failed to obtain informed consent and that the deviation from the standard of care or failure to obtain informed consent caused the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff must prove the 'standard of care,' breach of the standard of care, the standard for informed consent and lack of informed consent through the testimony of an expert witness." The defense experts testified that the standard of care did not require taking the temperature of a sick baby before administering a vaccine. They argued that it was acceptable that he could be vaccinated even while ill. And even despite the baby having an active bilateral ear infection, being on antibiotics and after suffering screaming and shaking episodes following previous vaccinations, all of this was permitted under local 'standard of care.' They also argued that local 'standard of care' did not include following the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC's) Contra-indication for Childhood Immunizations. It is clear that the legal and medical systems are stacked against parents of vaccine-injured children.
The State of Tennessee has legislative rules that greatly restrict who could testify on behalf of children concerning local 'standard of care.' This was a huge roadblock for Yates' case. In addition, the CDC senior scientist whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, was blocked by the CDC from testifying in the case. Dr. Thompson admitted in 2014 that CDC scientists omitted "statistically significant information" from a 2004 study he co-authored that claimed the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine did not cause autism when in fact it did. Any reference to Dr. Thompson, the Hannah Poling case, or comments made by the former head of the CDC, Dr. Gerberding, where she admitted connections between the MMR vaccine and autism were disallowed and the jury remained uninformed. Dr. Gerberding was rewarded for her vaccine loyalty in 2010 and is now the chief patient officer and executive vice-president of Merck--the developer of the MMR vaccine.
Despite the uninformed jury's verdict, Hazlehurst vowed to continue the fight for vaccine-injured children. He quoted the words of Winston Churchill, "Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." The battle for truth remains engaged. Rolf Hazlehurst has joined the Children's Health Defense and now works with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as a senior staff attorney.